Category: Align cars
Trump TORCHES Biden-Buttigieg EPA rules
Washington rarely admits when policy has failed. But earlier this month, the White House stepped back from more than a decade of regulations that drove car prices to record highs, limited consumer choice, and tried to force an industry to move faster than technology, infrastructure, or American families could manage.
With the unveiling of the Freedom Means Affordable Cars proposal, President Donald Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy signaled a dramatic shift in national auto policy — one aimed at making car ownership attainable again for millions priced out of the market.
The Biden-Buttigieg standards were projected to generate $14 billion in compliance fines between 2027 and 2032, costs manufacturers said would be passed directly to buyers.
The timing is critical. New vehicle prices topped $50,000 this fall, while average monthly payments approached $750. Families are keeping cars longer than ever, pushing the average age of the U.S. fleet to record levels. As Washington pushed electric vehicles, consumers pushed back: EV demand stalled, rejection rates soared, and buyers continued to favor affordable gas and hybrid vehicles. That tension has been building for years, and the December 3 announcement marked the most direct challenge yet to the regulatory regime behind it.
Trump’s proposal resets National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fuel-economy rules, reversing Biden-era targets that aimed to push the fleet toward roughly 50 mpg.
Closing the ‘back door’
Under the new plan, Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards return to 34.5 mpg — levels last seen in the late 2000s — with future increases scaled back to what Congress originally envisioned. The administration projects up to $109 billion in savings over five years and roughly $1,000 off the average new car. Whether those figures hold, the philosophical shift is clear: ending what the White House calls a backdoor EV mandate.
For years, automakers warned privately that the prior rules forced them to build vehicles customers didn’t want simply to avoid massive penalties. The Biden-Buttigieg standards were projected to generate $14 billion in compliance fines between 2027 and 2032, costs manufacturers said would be passed directly to buyers. Aligning federal rules with California’s stricter standards further nudged companies toward EVs even as demand weakened. CAFE was never meant to reshape the marketplace — but that is how it was being used.
The consequences were stark. Billions were poured into EV-charging initiatives with little to show for it; $5 trillion was allocated, yet only 11 stations were built nationwide. California faced rolling blackouts with EVs still just 2.3% of vehicles on the road. Experts warned that even 10% EV adoption would strain the grid under current infrastructure. Meanwhile buyers who didn’t want EVs — still the majority — faced fewer choices and higher prices.
Attracting investment
The Trump reset aims to reverse course. Automakers quickly announced new domestic investments. Stellantis committed $13 billion to expand U.S. manufacturing, including Jeep, Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler. Ford pledged $5 billion for American facilities, noting that 80% of its vehicles are already made domestically. General Motors announced $4 billion to bring production back from Mexico while retooling plants for broader consumer demand. Even the United Auto Workers offered support, citing increased U.S. jobs and domestic production.
The plan also includes a tax change backed by the National Auto Dealers Association, allowing buyers to deduct interest on American-built vehicles. At a time when many families are locked out of the new-car market, the measure offers practical relief while encouraging domestic manufacturing.
Less noticed — but equally important — was the Congressional Review Act action that eliminated California’s special emissions waivers. Signed in June 2025, those resolutions dismantled the structure that allowed California to dictate national vehicle policy, ending the EV mandate embedded in federal regulations and clearing the way for this shift.
RELATED: Duffy threatens funding freeze for 3 states flouting English requirements for truck drivers
Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy. Photographer: Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Not far enough?
Some analysts argue the rollback doesn’t go far enough. As long as CAFE exists — at any target — it remains vulnerable to political swings. They contend emissions should be regulated directly through the EPA, leaving the market to determine the mix of gas, hybrid, and electric vehicles. This view is gaining traction among critics who say CAFE no longer reflects consumer demand or technological reality.
Even Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio weighed in, calling the forced EV pivot “irrational policy” that benefits China. China controls roughly 80% of EV battery minerals and most related mining, while the U.S. holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Moreno’s argument is blunt: America weakened its own manufacturing base by adopting policies that played to China’s strengths.
Sales data reinforces the point. EVs made up about 6% of new vehicle sales in November 2025, with rejection rates near 70% due to cost, charging gaps, range limits, insurance, and cold-weather performance. EVs still account for just 2.3% of vehicles on U.S. roads. The demand Washington expected never materialized.
The new policy reflects those realities. It restores balance to an industry pushed into transformation without consumer support or infrastructure readiness. Automakers will still build EVs and hybrids and pursue new technologies — but consumers will decide the pace, not regulators.
For the first time in years, drivers may again see affordability, variety, and genuine choice. Fuel-economy rules will remain contested, but the Freedom Means Affordable Cars plan marks the most significant shift in auto policy in over a decade.
For millions of Americans priced out of the market, that change alone is long overdue.
Flock Safety: Is any driver safe from its AI-powered surveillance?
Buckle up, America — because if you’re driving anywhere in this country, you’re already under surveillance.
I’m not talking about speed traps or red-light cameras. I’m talking about Flock Safety cameras, those sleek, solar-powered, AI-driven spies perched on poles in your neighborhood, outside your kid’s school, at the grocery store, and along every major road.
The Institute for Justice has filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Flock effectively builds detailed, warrantless movement profiles of ordinary people.
These cameras are not just reading your license plate. They’re building a digital DNA profile of your vehicle — make, model, color, dents, bumper stickers, roof racks, even temporary tags — and logging where you’ve been, when, and with whom you’ve traveled.
And guess who has 24/7 access? Your local police, HOAs, apartment complexes, and private businesses — all without a warrant, without your consent, and often without you even knowing they exist.
Worse than you think
I’ve been warning drivers for decades about government overreach, from cashless tolls to black-box data recorders. But Flock Safety? This is next-level.
Founded in 2017 in Atlanta, Flock has exploded into a $3.5 billion surveillance empire with over 900 employees and a single goal: blanket every city in America with cameras. As of 2024, it has already deployed 40,000 to 60,000 units across 42 states in more than 5,000 communities. That’s not a pilot program. That’s a national tracking grid.
Here’s how it works — and why it should terrify every freedom-loving American.
Pure surveillance tools
Flock’s Falcon and Sparrow cameras don’t enforce speed or traffic laws. They’re pure surveillance tools.
Mounted on utility poles, traffic signals, or private property, they use automated license plate recognition (ALPR) and Vehicle Fingerprint™ technology to capture high-resolution images of your vehicle’s rear, including the license plate with state, number, and expiration, plus the make, model, year, color, and unique identifiers like dents, decals, roof racks, spare tires, even paper plates. They record the time, date, and GPS location, using infrared imaging for 24/7 operation, even at 100 mph from 75 feet away.
The data is uploaded instantly via cellular networks to Flock’s cloud servers, stored for 30 days, and accessible through a web portal by any approved user. That includes police departments across state lines through Flock’s TALON investigative platform. Drive from Georgia to New York, and every Flock camera you pass logs your journey. No warrant needed in most states.
RELATED: Why states are quietly moving to restrict how much you drive
F8 Imaging/Getty Images
Staggering scale
The scale is staggering. Milwaukee has 219 cameras with 100 more planned. Riverside County, California, uses 309 cameras to scan 27.5 million vehicles monthly. Norfolk, Virginia, has over 170 units. Raleigh, North Carolina, has 25 and counting.
Nationwide, Flock claims it logs over one billion vehicle scans per month. These cameras cost $2,500 per year per unit, are solar-powered with no wiring required, and can be installed in hours. HOAs love them, schools want them, police can’t get enough, and new units go up daily, often without public notice or approval.
Flock CEO Garrett Langley loves to brag about Flock’s crime-stopping potential. But what he doesn’t mention is that you’re tracked whether you’re a criminal or not.
No opting out
There’s no true opt-out for the public — every passing car is still scanned and logged — but some neighborhoods and agencies use Flock’s SafeList feature to avoid nuisance alerts. SafeList doesn’t exempt anyone from being recorded. It simply tells the system not to flag certain familiar plates (residents, staff, permitted vehicles) as suspicious. The camera still captures the vehicle, stores the image, and makes it searchable; it just won’t trigger an alert for those approved plates.
Flock cameras can photograph more than a license plate — sometimes the interior of a car, passengers, or bumper stickers — but this varies by angle and lighting, and the system is not designed to gather facial images.
Privacy nightmare
This is a privacy nightmare. The ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation call it mass surveillance. A small-town cop in Ohio can search your plate and see everywhere you’ve driven in Florida. Rogue officers have abused ALPR before, stalking exes, journalists, activists. Data breaches? Flock says its cloud is secure, but we’ve heard that before.
A 2024 Norfolk, Virginia, ruling initially held that Flock’s system amounted to a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant. But that decision was later reversed on appeal. Meanwhile, the Institute for Justice has filed a federal lawsuit arguing that Flock effectively builds detailed, warrantless movement profiles of ordinary people. If that case succeeds, it would be a true game-changer.
Yes, finding a kidnapped child or stolen car is good. But at what cost? This creates a chilling effect: Will you avoid a protest, a church, a gun shop, a clinic, knowing you’re being logged? This isn’t safety. This is control.
Fighting back
So what can you do right now? Start by finding the cameras — contact your police, city council, or HOA and ask where the Flock cameras are and who has access.
Demand transparency: Push for public hearings, warrant requirements, data deletion after 24 hours, and no sharing outside your jurisdiction. Support the fighters like the ACLU, EFF, and Institute for Justice. Spot the cameras yourself — look for black poles with tilted solar panels and a small camera box.
It’s time to post your opinions on X, call your reps, show up at meetings — let’s stop the surveillance.
Flock’s CEO dreams of a camera in every U.S. city. But liberty isn’t free, and it shouldn’t come with a tracking device.
Drop your thoughts below — I read every comment. Share this information with every driver you know. Because if we don’t fight now, soon there’ll be nowhere left to hide.
Farewell to fake fuel efficiency stats, hello to tough future for EVs
Fake fuel economy has got to go.
That’s the message of a recent decision by the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sent to the scrap heap: a Biden-era Department of Energy rule that critics say wildly inflated the fuel economy ratings of EVs — giving them an unfair regulatory advantage over gasoline and hybrid vehicles.
The court’s ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.
This is a major correction to how the U.S. government measures vehicle efficiency, with consequences for automakers, consumers, and the future of the EV market.
Efficiency inflation
The case was brought by 13 Republican attorneys general, who argued that the DOE’s formula for calculating EV efficiency was misleading and legally indefensible. The court agreed, ruling that the Biden administration overstepped its authority by continuing to use an outdated, artificial formula that inflated electric vehicle performance under federal fuel economy standards.
At stake is the credibility of how America measures vehicle efficiency — a key driver in regulatory decisions that shape everything from automaker product lines to what cars consumers can buy.
For years, the DOE’s so-called petroleum equivalency factor has been used to translate electric power into miles-per-gallon equivalents. But the formula wasn’t based on realistic energy comparisons. Instead, it massively overstated how far an EV could travel on the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline — often rating electric cars above 100 MPGE, regardless of actual energy costs or grid efficiency.
Credits as currency
Rather than immediately fixing this issue, the Biden administration’s DOE planned a slow phase-out of the inflated metric between model years 2027 and 2030. That delay allowed automakers to continue claiming exaggerated efficiency numbers — and collecting fuel economy credits that made it easier to comply with the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.
Why does that matter? Because those credits act as a form of regulatory currency. A company that racks up credits through high-efficiency vehicles can use them to offset the sale of less efficient models or even sell them to other automakers.
In other words, the inflated EV math didn’t just look better on paper — it saved automakers millions of dollars in potential penalties while giving policymakers a talking point about “historic progress” in fuel efficiency that wasn’t based on real-world performance.
A direct rebuke
In its 3-0 decision, the Eighth Circuit ruled that the DOE had gone beyond its legal bounds. Agencies can’t rewrite laws through policy tweaks, the judges said, even under the guise of “phasing out” old rules. The DOE was required by statute to eliminate the flawed formula entirely — not stretch it over several more years of inflated numbers.
The court’s ruling was clear and direct: Federal agencies cannot manipulate timelines or definitions to advance a policy agenda without proper authorization from Congress.
That’s a significant rebuke not just to the DOE, but to a broader pattern of regulatory overreach that has characterized much of Washington’s EV push.
For the states that brought the lawsuit, the decision represents a major win for transparency, accountability, and consumer protection.
Pivoting on EVs
The implications for automakers are enormous. For years, inflated EV efficiency numbers helped carmakers meet federal fuel economy targets and avoid costly fines. Without that regulatory buffer, the industry will need to adapt quickly.
Automakers may now lose the valuable fuel economy credits they’ve relied on to remain compliant with CAFE standards, forcing them to find new ways to meet efficiency goals. That shift will require genuine engineering improvements — advances in aerodynamics, weight reduction, and hybrid technology — rather than relying on inflated paper-based advantages.
This change could also prompt a broader reassessment of electric vehicle strategy. If the regulatory math no longer tilts in favor of EVs, many manufacturers may slow their rollout plans or diversify their portfolios to include more hybrids and high-efficiency gasoline models.
The timing is significant: EV demand has cooled, dealer inventories are building up, and consumer interest has leveled off. Automakers such as Ford, General Motors, and Volkswagen have already scaled back or delayed certain EV programs in response to slower-than-expected sales and ongoing infrastructure limitations.
RELATED: Sticker shock: Cali EV drivers lose carpool exemption
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Consumer transparency
For everyday drivers, this ruling doesn’t ban EVs — but it brings more honesty to the system.
Consumers deserve accurate information about vehicle efficiency, cost of ownership, and environmental impact. Inflated fuel economy ratings distort that picture, making EVs appear more efficient than they are when accounting for charging losses, battery manufacturing, and electric grid emissions.
Now, car buyers can make more informed choices — whether that’s a hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or traditional gasoline vehicle.
In the long term, this ruling could encourage a broader mix of technology rather than a forced, one-size-fits-all transition to battery electrics.
The fight to come
This case isn’t just about EVs. It’s about how much power federal agencies should have to rewrite laws without Congressional oversight.
For decades, Washington has leaned on regulatory agencies to shape environmental and energy policy — often through complex formulas that most Americans never see. But as the Eighth Circuit emphasized, the ends don’t justify the means.
Even if the goal is cleaner transportation, the process has to respect legal boundaries. When agencies overreach, courts must intervene to restore balance.
This decision reinforces an important principle: Policy must be grounded in law, not ideology. And in a country that values free markets and consumer choice, regulations should enhance transparency, not distort it.
The ruling leaves several key questions unanswered, but it is likely just the beginning of a much larger policy fight. Congress could attempt to step in by rewriting the laws that govern fuel economy standards, giving the DOE clearer authority to define how electric vehicle efficiency is calculated. However, such legislative efforts would almost certainly face significant political gridlock in an already divided Congress.
Much-needed realism
Automakers, meanwhile, are expected to take a hard look at how they allocate their research and development budgets and how they plan future vehicle lineups.
Companies heavily invested in electric vehicles have shifted strategies, focusing more on hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and improved gasoline technologies — especially in markets where EV sales have already shown signs of slowing or flattening.
Finally, the court’s reasoning may open the door to further challenges that could include renewed scrutiny of EPA emissions standards and federal tax credits, both of which critics argue have tilted the market in favor of electric vehicles rather than allowing consumer demand and market forces to guide the transition naturally.
The Eighth Circuit’s decision is a defining moment for the future of American automotive policy. It doesn’t kill the EV market — but it forces it to stand on its own merits.
Electric vehicles have their place in the market, but consumers deserve truthful efficiency data and honest cost comparisons. Inflated numbers and creative accounting don’t serve innovation — they undermine it.
This ruling restores some much-needed realism to the national conversation about the future of mobility. It’s a win for transparency, for accountability, and most importantly, for consumers who want to make decisions based on facts rather than politics.
Global chip dispute threatens auto production again!
The auto industry just can’t seem to get a break.
Just a few years out from COVID-era supply chain issues, a new computer chip shortage looms — and it’s threatening manufacturers on both sides of the Atlantic.
Germany’s auto industry lobbying group VDA warns that carmakers are days away from having to shut down production — with the crisis possibly spreading beyond Europe to the U.S. within weeks.
Automakers cannot simply switch suppliers overnight; qualifying new chips and redesigning vehicle modules take months.
Here’s the issue: A Dutch chip maker called Nexperia got bought out by a Chinese company called Wingtech. The Trump administration then warned the Dutch that the Chinese were planning to move technology and production out of the Netherlands to China, so the Dutch government seized control of the company in September. China retaliated by prohibiting exports of Nexperia components that are made in China.
Voila: a brand new chip shortage.
Going Dutch
Nexperia may not produce the most advanced semiconductors, but it’s an essential, high-volume provider of automotive chips that control electronic systems in modern vehicles. Without them, automakers cannot assemble cars efficiently.
On September 30, the Dutch government invoked emergency powers to take control of Nexperia, citing concerns about technology transfer to the company’s Chinese parent, Wingtech. This action followed months of U.S. pressure, including adding Wingtech to the U.S. Entity List (thus requiring a special license for an American company wanting to trade with it) and extending export control restrictions to subsidiaries owned at least 50% by China.
Dutch officials described the intervention as a defensive step to protect European technological assets and maintain supply-chain security. While day-to-day operations have been left to the Chinese owners, strategic decisions now fall under government oversight.
China calls
On October 4, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued export controls prohibiting Nexperia China and its subcontractors from exporting certain finished components and sub-assemblies. Automakers immediately expressed concern.
The European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association warned that production could be significantly disrupted. In the U.S., the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing nearly all major automakers including General Motors, Ford, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, urged a quick resolution.
“If the shipment of automotive chips doesn’t resume — quickly — it’s going to disrupt auto production in the U.S. and many other countries and have a spillover effect in other industries,” said CEO John Bozzella.
Supply-chain sequel
Modern vehicles rely heavily on electronics. Even models without luxury infotainment systems use Nexperia chips for electronic control units, powertrain management, safety systems, and more.
The disruption illustrates the fragility of the global supply chain. Automakers cannot simply switch suppliers overnight; qualifying new chips and redesigning vehicle modules take months. Even a small interruption can cascade, causing production delays, increased costs, or halted assembly lines.
Volkswagen and BMW reported that European production has not yet been impacted but said they were actively evaluating supply risks. In the U.S., exposure grows daily as plants rely on components sourced through European operations or shared supplier networks. Japan and other countries are already preparing for the negative impact.
Chips are down
The disruption could lead to short-term production slowdowns, with car plants in Europe, Japan, Korea, and potentially the U.S. reducing shifts, delaying vehicle launches, or postponing deliveries.
The need to find alternative suppliers, expedite shipping, or re-engineer components will increase costs, potentially raising vehicle prices for consumers.
Automakers are also likely to accelerate supply-chain restructuring, diversifying suppliers, resourcing production domestically, or redesigning vehicles to rely less on single-source components. If chip availability remains constrained, vehicles may arrive with fewer options or higher prices, impacting both buyers and dealers. This will not help a hurting industry.
Slow learners?
The Nexperia dispute highlights a growing reality: Automakers are navigating a geopolitical minefield. Governments increasingly treat technology and component supply as strategic assets, and decisions made halfway across the world can ripple through production lines almost instantly. It seems like the last chip shortage didn’t teach too many lessons.
Automakers must now consider geopolitical risk in procurement decisions, diversify suppliers, and maintain contingency stock. For consumers, vehicle availability, pricing, and features can be affected by forces far beyond local dealerships. Just like the last chip shortage, dealers raised prices to offset lack of supply and high demand.
In a world where electronics are as essential to cars as engines, supply-chain resilience is no longer optional — it’s critical. The Nexperia dispute is a warning sign, and for the auto industry, the stakes could not be higher.
